The Professor’s story, sure, but there is no hint in the Bible story that Noah is sinning. Just his son.
Which, as mentioned, I don’t “get”. I read the SD article (thanks, Measure for Measure), but that doesn’t make it a lot clearer, just speculation that the original hearers would have known what it was all about. Which I don’t.
Again, my apologies if I seemed to have dissed the Talmud or cmkeller’s contributions to the thread.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan:
Don’t worry, I’m cool with it. But I realize that a lot of the Talmudic stuff will be thought of as “apologetics” or “rationalization.” That’s the sort of thing that a lot of people dismiss out of hand as being inauthentic. I knew what I was getting into when I involved myself in this thread series to begin with.
While the text doesn’t explicitly condemn Noah, there’s a clear indication that getting drunk and wallowing around naked is inappropriate, but not necessarily “sinning.” The Talmudic story quoted by Prof P comes at a much later time, and clearly views drunken behavior as sinning (or, at least, as a consequence of Satan’s lures.)
I think that the whole point of the SD Staff Report is that we don’t really understand this story. Whether this is because we only have fragments, whether this is because of the cultural/language gap of 3,000 years, or for some other reason, we have only different guesses. There are a number of similar cases in the bible; we just don’t know what it really means, we can only try to interpret.
Also noting: observant Jews (such as cmkeller) will be unable to post for the next three days because of the festival of Sukkot, followed by Sabbath. To all of them: hag sameakh when you do read this! To all the rest: if these discussions get so far as the ancient biblical holidays (Exodus 23 and Leviticus somewhere), you’ll find this a fascinating one.
Thank you.
To beat a dead horse a bit further, I was not dismissing it as inauthentic. It is a point of view about the story from a different perspective, albeit one from a later time. And your input as to what the scholars of the Talmud said and thought is as worthwhile as any other, and more (obviously) than mine.
As I said, I don’t see that indication. Noah’s son, yes. It is quite clear that he sinned by seeing his father naked. Noah himself- no, he just got drunk and passed out.
Quite true, and that’s interesting in itself. Even the earliest commentaries we’ve got don’t seem to know what this one is about.
As you say, these kinds of things are sprinkled throughout the Bible.
Regards,
Shodan
That wasn’t viewed as “sinning” in the sense that a 1920s Prohibitionist would consider it “sinning”, but it’s pretty clearly not the behavior one expects of a hero. Remember that he was described as the “most righteous man of his generation.” Getting drunk and passing out (naked) wasn’t what a role model should do. It’s not sinning, it’s just sort of… scandalous.
By the way, one of the things that I think is interesting about the text is that the biblical heroes are all shown as flawed human beings. The example of Noah is perhaps the most egregious, but we’ll see it later in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc. They’re described, warts and all, as very human.
I see nothing in the text that suggests this. The focus and the condemnation are 100% aimed at Ham. It is pretty clearly stated that he sinned. The indication that Noah sinned, or did anything scandalous by getting drunk, is not only not “clear”, it is non-existent.
Back when I did the Bethel Bible Series, one of the things they stressed was to try to think like a Hebrew. Yes, it is certainly true that a modern person like me would think that the part about Noah getting plastered and lying around with his junk hanging out was scandalous. But no hint of that exists in the story as told. And therefore I need to drop my modern sensibilities and try to figure out why that is. So far, without success - I don’t see why Ham’s sin is condemned and not Noah’s drunkenness.
Now clearly this story is included to explain why the natives of Canaan would be considered subordinate to the people of Israel. That would be a justification for conquering and enslaving them. I believe this verse was even used as a rationalization for slavery in the Old South - that blacks were the descendents of Ham and therefore slavery was what they were for. But in a way it contradicts an even nastier, later passage. When Israel is going in to conquer Palestine, they are warned to kill all the people they find living there - not leave even one of them alive, because otherwise they would tempt the Jews into worshipping other gods and be corrupted. And they don’t, and they are. But I can see Jews using this to justify enslaving Canaanites instead of wiping them out - “see, the verse says slavery is what Canaanites are for!”
Like I said, it’s an odd story, and I don’t get it very well. Unless I project my judgments backwards, which is not respectful of the text.
Regards,
Shodan
The Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn a lot of things when they happen, but looking at the narrative as a whole, getting stupid drunk and exposing yourself to your sons is not exactly godly behavior. So while Ham explicitly sinned in his actions, we could have avoided all of this if Noah practiced a little moderation and good sense.
A number of commentators have expressed the idea that Noah was the first to plant a vineyard. Consequently, he didn’t know the effects of wine and got drunk accidentally. Then he became overly warm from the wine, and took off his clothes. Then passed out. So, from that POV, he didn’t sin because he didn’t know what would happen. Needless to say, others have different opinions.
One interesting question is how Noah found out what Ham had done. Noah was passed out and he wouldn’t have known Ham had seen him naked while he was unconscious.
The likeliest conclusion from the text is Shem and Japheth told Noah. The text says that Ham told his brothers and they would have been the only people besides Ham himself who knew. And there’s no evidence Ham confessed.
It puts a different spin on Ham and his descendants being made slaves to Shem and Japheth and their descendants if you realize Shem and Japheth engineered the decree. Their actions might reflect self-interest as much as piety.
I am loving these discussions, even though I often feel I don’t have much to contribute. Yet I want to post, even if only to let the more knowledgeable folks know that I really appreciate their insights.
So I’ll post now to say that I’m very much of a mind with Shodan, about most Bible stories, actually, that they have always seemed to me to be so removed from any familiar cultural references – it’s like trying to watch a single episode of Lost from right in the middle (and let’s say it’s an episode that wasn’t recorded very well so parts are missing) and expecting anyone to follow it at all. But that said, I’ve always been fascinated with wondering what the missing parts are, and intrigued by later generations’ attempts to fill in the blanks.
This story makes me wonder if Ham was simply a perpetually an annoying turd even prior to this (like the kind of guy you do not want to be stuck with on a ark for any length of time), and this was the thing that pushed everyone over the edge.
Keep in mind, God doesn’t directly appear in this passage. It wasn’t God who condemned Ham - it was Noah. And that may explain why Ham’s sin against Noah was punished so severely while Noah’s sin was passed over.
I am really out of my depth here. But given that this text was presented in mixed company (including kids) I detect a definite subtext to Genesis 9:18-9:29. I don’t know what the hidden story is and I opine that it’s probably unrecoverable at present. Heck it could be as innocent as Noah the First and Last Guy to Get Drunk By Surprise, although I doubt that a little. But the fact is that Noah went ballistic on Ham’s kid.
My take is that the chapter reflects something about human psychology. You don’t fly into a rage when you are 100% innocent. You don’t fly into a range when you are 100% wrong. It’s when you are 20% wrong or maybe even a little more than you are inclined to point fingers, yell or shout, especially when others act out of line or way out of line. Of course we privilege our own behavior. A human frailty, IMHO, particularly troubling among spouses and family.
Quite possibly. Which nonetheless does not explain why what Ham did was a sin.
Regards,
Shodan
He brought public shame onto his father. Maintaining the reputation of your family is paramount in some cultures. Even today there are honor killings. The primary sin in these cases is not sex, it is disgracing the family. The commandment to “honor thy father and mother” may sound like it concerns your personal relationship with your parents to modern ears, but may have been a command to look after the reputation and interests of your family in that society.
Which is sort of funny when you think about the fact (if the story is taken literally), Noah’s family and society are exactly the same people.